Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee are asking the Department of Defense to explain why it fully classified a $90 billion spending plan recently sent to Congress, deviating from standard practice. (Eric Kayne/Stars and Stripes)
WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee are asking the Department of Defense to explain why it fully classified a $90 billion spending plan recently sent to Congress, deviating from standard practice.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, of Oregon, the top Democrat on the panel, said the decision undermined congressional oversight and was part of a pattern of transparency issues with the Pentagon, which adopted new restrictions last year on communication with lawmakers.
“Even at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense appropriation spend plans were not fully classified,” Merkley and nine other senators wrote in a letter sent Tuesday to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. “It strains credulity that all the items in the $90 billion classified spend plan are sensitive enough to warrant complete classification.”
The Department of Defense declined to comment on the letter Wednesday.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees provided guidance for how the money should be spent, and Sen. Roger Wicker, of Mississippi, the Republican chairman of the Senate panel, continually pressed Pentagon nominees to commit to adhering to congressional intent.
The Pentagon has not explained why the plan was classified, according to senators, even though items such as barracks improvements and benefit increases for personnel are not sensitive. Typically, only intelligence or specific sensitive programs required classified spending plans.
The $90 billion spending plan is part of $150 billion allocated for defense in a sweeping Republican spending bill passed last year. Congress has yet to receive a spending plan for the remaining $60 billion, according to Merkley.
Merkley said there are now fears the funds are being used for unintended purposes, including paying troop salaries during a lengthy government shutdown last year and providing a $1,776 bonus to service members in December.
“Such uses appear contrary to congressional intent, which envisioned reconciliation funding as a tool for specific programmatic needs rather than a slush fund for the President’s ad hoc priorities,” the letter states. “This underscores the risk that, absent robust transparency, reconciliation funds may be diverted to unintended purposes.”
Senators are seeking a reply from Hegseth by Feb. 20 and are urging the Pentagon to provide appropriately marked spending plans “without delay.”
“Congress cannot forfeit its constitutional role in overseeing the defense budget,” they wrote. “Transparency is not optional; it is the foundation of accountability.”
